Access to medical care is undoubtedly a social and political issue, requiring arguments about what society and its government owe to its citizens.

Argumentative Analysis paper 1200-1500 words. Paper 1: Access to medical care is undoubtedly a social and political issue, requiring arguments about what society and its government owe to its citizens. But setting aside questions of law, access is also a bioethical issue for both individual medical professionals and institutions. What ethical duties of care do medical professionals or institutions have regarding established patients, and what ethical duties do they have, if any, to members of the community who are not already established patients? Are there different duties regarding different kinds of care? Paper 2: Delaney and Hershenov argue that consent is not needed at all in order to harvest the organs of the deceased. But there is a slightly less strong position one could take: one might argue that it’s permissible for a society to switch its stance on organ donation from opt-in, as we have in the U.S. at present, to opt-out. This would mean that any person who didn’t opt out of organ donation while she lived was giving tacit consent to have her organs harvested at her death. What would be the best principled argument for this view? Would it be correct?